prosecute. the final report provides a forum for unfairly airing a target's dirty laundry. it also creates another incentive for an independent counsel to over-investigate in order to justify his or her tenure and to avoid criticism that the independent counsel may have left a stone unturned. those are a.g. reno's words. didn't you do exactly what she feared? didn't you publish a lengthy report unfairly airs the dirty laundry without recommending charges? >> i disagree with that. >> did any of your witnesses have the chance to be cross examined? >> can i just finish my answer on that? >> quickly. >> i operate under the current schoout. not the original statute. so i am most familiar with the current statute. >> did any of the witnesses have a chance to be cross examined? >> did any of the witnesses in our investigation? >> yes. >> i'm not going to answer that. >> did you allow the people

mentioned in your report to challenge how they were characterized? >> i'm not going to get into that. >> given that a.g. barr stated multiple times during his confirmation hearing that he would make as much of your report public as possible, did you write your report knowing it would likely be shared with the public? >> no. >> did knowing the report could and likely would be made public, did that alter the contents which you included? >> i can't speak to that. >> despite the expectations that your report would be released to the public, you left out significant exculpatory evidence. evidence favorable to the president, correct? >> actually, i would disagree with you. i think we strove to put into the report exculpatory -- >> where you said -- you said there was evidence you left out. >> you make a choice as to what goes into an indictment. >> isn't it true that on page one of volume two, you state

when you're quoting the statute, the obligation to either prosecute or not prosecute. >> generally that is the case. although most cases are not done in the context of the president. >> and in this case you made a decision not to prosecute, correct? >> no, we made a decision not to decide whether to prosecute or not. >> so essentially what your report did was everything that a.g. reno warned against. >> i can't agree with that characterization. >> well, what you did is compiled a nearly 450 -- you compiled nearly 450 pages of the worst evidence you gathered against the target of your investigation who happens to be the president of the united states and you did this knowing you were not going to recommend charges and the report would be made public. >> not true. >> mr. mueller, as a former officer in the united states j.a.g. corps, i prosecuted in a

baghdad courtroom and for our navy s.e.a.l.s. so i'm very well versed in the american legal system. the drafting in the publication of some of the information in this report without an indictment, without prosecution, frankly flies in the face of american justice. and i find those facts of this entire process un-american. i yield the remainder of my time to jim jordan. >> director mueller, the third renewal happens a month after you're named special counsel. did that deal with -- >> i'm not going to answer that. >> time has expired. >> director mueller, a couple of my colleagues right here wanted to talk to you or ask you about lies. so let's talk about lies. according to your report page 9 volume 1, witnesses lied to your office and to congress. those lies materially impaired

the investigation of russia interference according to your report. other than the individuals who pled guilty to crimes based on their lying to you and your team, did other witnesses lie to you? >> i think there probably are a specter of witnesses in terms of those who are not telling the full truth. and those are outright liars. >> thank you. outright liars. it is fair to say then that there were limits on what evidence was available to your investigation of both russian election interference and obstruction of justice. >> that's true and usually the case. >> and that lies by trump campaign officials and administration officials impeded your investigation. >> i would generally agree with that. >> thank you so much, director mueller. you will be hearing more from me in the next hearing so i yield the balance of my time to mr. korea. thank you. >> mr. mueller, first of all let me welcome you. thank you for your service to

our country. you're a hero. vietnam war vet. wounded war vet. we won't forget your service to our country. >> thank you, sir. >> i may begin because of time limits we've gone in depth only on five possible episodes of obstruction. there's so much more. and i want the focus on another section of obstruction which is the president's conduct concerning michael flynn. the president's national security adviser. in early 27, the informed that mr. flynn had lied to government authorities about his communications with the russian ambassador during the trump campaign in transition. is this correct? >> correct. >> if a hostile nation knows that a u.s. official has lied publicly, that can be used to blackmail that government official, correct? >> i'm not going to speak to that. i don't agree necessarily but

i'm not going to speak any more to that issue. >> thank you. flynn resigned in 2016. the very next day when the president was having lunch with new jersey governor chris christie, did the president say, open quotes, now that we fired flynn the russia thing is over, closed quote? is that correct? >> correct. >> and is it true that christie responded by saying, open quotes, no way. this russia thing is far from over, closed quote. >> that's the way we have it in the report. >> thank you. and after the president met with christie, later that same day the president arranged to meet with then-fbi director james comey. alone in the oval office, correct? >> correct. particularly at the -- you have the citation to the page? >> according to comey, the president told him, open quote,

i hope you can see your way to clear to letting this thing go, to letting flynn go. he's a good guy and i hope you can let it go. closed quote. page 40, volume 2. >> accurate. >> what did comey understand the president to be asking? >> i'm not going to get into what was in mr. comey's mind. >> comey understood this to be a direction because of the president's position and the circumstances of the one-to-one meeting page 40 volume 2. >> i understand it's in the report. and i support it as being in the report. >> thank you, sir. even though the president publicly denied telling comey to drop the investigation, you found, open quote, substantial evidence corroborating comey's account over the president's. is this correct? >> that's correct. >> the president fired comey on may 9th, is that correct, sir?

>> i believe that's the accurate date. >> that's page 77, volume 2. you found substantial evidence that the catalyst for the president's firing of comey was comey's, open quote, unwillingness to publicly state that the president was not personally under investigation. >> i'm not going to delve more into the details of what happened. if it's in the report, then i support it because it's already been reviewed appropriately appears in the report. >> and that's page 75, volume 2. >> thank you. >> thank you. in fact, the next day, the president told the russian foreign minister, open quote, i just fired the head of the fbi. it was crazy, a real nutjob. i face great pressure because of russia. that's taken off. i'm not under investigation, closed quote. is that correct? >> that's what was written in the report, yes. >> time of the gentleman has expired. >> thank you, sir. >> gentleman from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. mueller, we've heard a lot about what you're not going to talk about today. so let's talk about something that you should be able to talk about. the law itself. the underlying obstruction statute and your creative legal analysis of the statutes in volume two. particularly your interpretation of 1512-c. section 15-12-c is a statute created as part of auditing financial regulations for public companies. as you write on page 164 of volume 2, this was provided as a floor amendment and closed a loophole with document sledding. also alters, drois a document or other to impair the object's integrity or availability for a official proceeding. other than if strzok's attempts to do so shall be fined not more than 20 years or both.

the analysis and application of the statute proposes to give clause two a much border interpretation than commonly used. first proposed to read it as a free standing provision prohibiting any act influencing a proceeding if done with an improper motive. and the analysis of the statute. taken by public officials exercising their discretionary powers. if those acts influence a proceeding. so mr. mueller, i'd ask you in analyzing the obstruction, you state that you recognize that the department of justice and the courts have not resolved these issues, correct? >> correct. >> you'd agree not everyone in the justice department agreed with your legal opinion, correct? >> i'm not going to be involved in a discussion on that at this juncture. >> in fact, the attorney general himself disagrees with your interpretation of the law,

correct? >> i leave that to the attorney general to identify. >> you would agree that prosecutors sometimes improperly adhere to the law. >> i would have to agree with that one. >> they were based on an incorrect legal thatter are i. >> we've all spent time in the trenches trying casing. not won every one of those cases. >> one of your top prosecutors against arthur anderson lower court which was subsequently overturned and a unanimous purchase. >> i'm not going to get into that -- may i just finish? may i just finish my answer? >> yes. >> i'm not going to get involved in a discussion on that. i will refer you to that citation that you gave me at the outset for the lengthy discussion on just what you're talking about and to the extent i have anything to say about it, it is what we've already put into the report on that. >> i am reading from your report when discussing this section.

i'll read from the decision of the supreme court unanimously reversing mr.wise man when he said it's striking how little it's required. even a -- instructions also diluted the meaning of skruptly such that it covered innocent conduct. >> let me just say -- >> let me move on. i have limited time. you take the broadest possible provision and applied it. i'm concerned about your over criminalizing conduct by officials and private citizens alike. to emphasize how broad it is, i want to ask a few examples. in 2015 during the investigation into the hillary clinton use of a private email server, president trump said i don't think it created a national security problem. couldn't president obama be

charged for obstruction of justice? >> i refer again to the report. but with andrew weisman, he's one of the more talented attorneys we've had over a period of time. he has run a number of units -- >> i have very limited time. in august 2015, a very senior doj official called fbi director andrew mccabe introducing concern they areare -- are you telling me to shut down an investigation to which the official replied of course not. this seems to be somebody within the executive branch to interfere with this. couldn't that person have been charged with. obstruction. >> i refer to you to our lengthy dissertation on exactly those issues that appears at the ond the report.

>> it says above the -- >> time of the gentleman has expired. our intent was to conclude this hearing in three hours. given the break that would bring us to approximately 11:40. we will ask our remaining democratic members to voluntarily limit their time below the five minutes so we can complete our work as close to that time frame as possible. i recognize the gentlelady from pennsylvania. >> thank you. i want to ask you some questions about the president's statements regarding advanced knowledge of the wikileaks dumps. so the president refused to sit down with your investigators for an in-person interview, correct? >> correct. >> so the only questions we have from the president are contained in appendix c to your report. >> that's correct. >> so looking at appendix c on page five, you asked the president over a dozen questions about whether he had knowledge that wikileaks possessed or

might possess the emails that were stolen by the russians. >> i apologize kpp you start it again? >> okay. sure. so we're looking at appendix c. >> right. >> and appendix c, page 5 you asked the president about a dozen questions about whether he had knowledge that wikileaks possessed the stolen emails that might be released in a way helpful to his campaign or harmful to the clinton campaign. is that correct, you asked those questions? >> yes. >> okay. in february of this year, mr. trump's personal attorney michael cohen testified to congress, quote, mr. trump knew from roger stone in advance about the wikileaks dump. end quote. that's a matter of public record. >> are you referring to the report or some other record? >> this is testimony to congress. >> i'm not specifically familiar with what he testified to before

congress. >> okay. let's look at an event described on page 18 of volume 2 of your report. and we're going to put it up in a slide, i think. according to deputy campaign manager rick gates in the summer of 2016 he and candidate trump were on the way to the airport and gates told your investigators that candidate trump was on a phone call and when the call ended, trump told gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming, end quote. do you recall that from the report? >> if it's in the report, i support it. >> okay. and that's on page 18 of volume 2. now, on page 77 of volume 2, your report also stated, quote, in addition to some kwnss said that trump privately sought wikileaks pieces is that correct?

>> correct. >> in appendix c, he said, quote, i do not recall discussing wikileaks with him m. doesing with individuals associated with mu campaign. >> if it's from the report, it is correct. >> is it fair to deny being aware that anyone associated with the campaign discussed with stone. >> could you repeat that one? >> is it fair that the president denied knowledge of himself or anyone else discussing wikileaks dumps with mr. stone? >> yep. >> and with that i yield back. >> thank you, ma'am. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. mueller, did you apply for the job a day before you were

appointed. zblifs not applying for the job. i was asked to give my input on what it would take to do the job which triggered the interview you're talking about. >> so you don't recall on may 16th, 2017, that you interviewed with the president regarding the fbi director job. >> i interviewed with the president. not about me applying if they are job. >> so your statement here today is you didn't interview to apply for the fbi director job? >> that's correct. >> so did you tell the fbi director position would be the one job you would come back for? >> i don't recall that one. >> you don't recall that, okay. given your 22 months of investigation, tens of millions of dollars spent, and millions of documents, did you say russians changed voters. >> i can't speak to that. >> there's no voter change

changed because of their interference. i'm asked based on the documents you had. >> that was outside our purview. the bakt of that meddling was undertaken by other agencies. >> okay. you stated in your opening statement that you would not get into the details of the steele dossier, however, many sometimes on page 23, 27, and 28 you mentioned the unverified allegations. how long did it take you to reach the conclusion that it was unverified. >> i'm not going to speak to that. >> it's actually in your report multiple times that it's unverified and you're telling me you're not willing to tell us to how you came to say it was unverified. ? >> true. >> when did you decide it was unverified to spy on carter page? >> i'm sorry. what was the question? >> when did you become aware that the unverified steele dossier was included in the fisa application to spy on carter

page. >> i'm not going to speak to that. >> your team interviewed christopher sale, is that correct? >> i'm not going to get into that. >> you can't tell this committee whether you interviewed him? >> at the outset, i said this is one of the investigations that is being handled by others in the department of justice. >> but you're here testifying about this today and i'm asking you directly did any member of your team or did you interview christopher seal? >> and i'm not going to answer that question, sir. >> you had two years to investigate. not once to investigate how unverified document that was paid for by a political opponent was used to obtain a warrant to spy on the opposition political come pain. did you do any investigation on that? >> i do not accept your characterization of what occurred. >> what would be your characterization? >> i'm not going to speak any more to it. >> so you're not going to speak any more to it but don't agree with my characterization.

is that correct? >> yes. >> the fisa application makes reference to source one who is christopher steele. the fisa application says conducting the research into candidate ties to russia based on sources reporting history with fbi whereby source one provided reliable information to the fbi. they believe it to be credible. do you think the representation that it was credible to be accurate. >> i'm not going to answer that. >> so you're not going to respond to any of the questions regarding christopher steele or your interviews with them? >> as i said at the outset this morning, that was one of the investigations that i could not speak to. >> well, i don't understand how if you interviewed an individual on the purview of this investigation that you're testifying to us today that you've closed that investigation, how that's not within your purview to tell us about your investigation and how you interviewed. >> i have nothing to add. >> okay. well, i can guarantee you the american people want to know.

and i'm very hopeful and glad that a.g. barr is looking into this and the inspector general is looking into this because you're unwilling to answer the questions of the american people as it relates to the basis of this investigation into the president. and the very basis of this individual who you did interview. you're just refusing to answer those questions. can't the president fire the fbi director at any time without reason under article one of the constitution? >> yes. >> article two. >> yes. >> that's correct. can't he fire you without any reason? >> i believe that to be the case. >> we >> without any reason. >> well, hold on. you said without any reason. i know special counsel can be fired but i'm not sure it extends to whatever reason. >> you've testified you weren't fired. you were able to complete your investigation in full, is that correct? >> i'm not going to add to what i've stated before. >> my time's expired. >> the gentlelady from pennsylvania. from texas.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. mueller for being with us close to the afternoon now. director mooul we are i would like to ask you about the president's answers relating to roger stone. roger stone was indicted for multiple several crimes alleged that future releases with the trump campaign. understanding there's a gas order on the stone case, i will keep my questions limited. >> let me just say at the outset, i don't mean to disrupt you, but i'm not -- i would like the demarcation of that which is applicable to this but also in such a way it does hinder the other prosecution taking place. >> i understand that. i'm only going to be talking about the questions that you asked in writing to the president that relate to mr. stone. >> thank you, ma'am.

>> mr. stone's indictment states among other things the following. stone was contacted by senior trump officials, the about future releases of organization one. organization one being wikileaks. the indictment continues, quote, stone told the campaign about releases of damaging material by wikileaks. so in short, the indictment alleges that stone was asked by the trump campaign to get information about more wikileaks releases and that stone, in fact, did tell the trump campaign about potential future releases. correct? >> yes, ma'am. but i see according to from the indictment and even though the indictment is a public document, i feel uncomfortable discussing anything having to do with the stone prosecution. >> right. the indictment is of record and we pulled it off of the -- i'm reading straight from it. well, turning back to the

president's answers to your questions then. on this very subject, the president ever discussing releases with stone. and denied whether anyone on his campaign had those conversations with stone. if you had learned that other witnesses putting aside the president, if other witnesses had lied to your investigators in response to specific questions. whether in writing or in an interview. would they be charged with false statement crimes? >> well, i'm not going to speculate. i think you're asking for me to speculate given a set of circumstances. >> let's go more specific. could guy to jail for up to five years? >> yes. although it's congress, so. >> well, that's the point, though, isn't it? that no one is above the law. >> that's true. >> not you. not the congress.

and certainly not the president. and i think it's just troubling to have to hear some of these things and that's why the american people deserve to learn the full facts of the misconduct described in your report for which any other person would have been charged with crimes. so thank you for being here and again, the point has been underscored many times but i'll repeat it, no one is above the law. thank you. >> thank you, ma'am. >> the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> mr. mueller, how many people on your staff did you fire during the course of the investigation? >> how many people -- >> did you fire? >> i'm not going to discuss that. >> you fired -- according to inspector general's report, attorney number two was let go and we know peter strzok was let go, correct? >> and there may have been other persons on other issues either transferred or fired. >> peter strzok testified before this committee in 2018 that he was fired because you were concerned about preserving the

appearance of independence. do you agree? >> say that again? >> he said he was fired at least partially because you were concerned about preserving the appearance of independence with the special counsel investigation. do you agree with that statement? >> the statement was by whom? >> peter strzok at this hearing. >> i'm not familiar with that. >> did you fire him because you were worried about the appearance of independence? >> no. he was transferred as a result of instances involving texts. >> do you agree that your office did not only have an obligation to operate within the appearance of independence swell? >> yes. we struggled to do that over the two years. part of doing that was -- >> andrew weisman is one of your top attorneys? >> yes. >> did he have a role for selecting other attorneys? >> he had some roll. >> don't know when i found that out. >> on january 30th, 2017,

weisman wrote an email to deputy attorney general yates stating i am so proud and in awe with her disobeying a direct order from the president. did he disclose that email to you. >> i'm not going to talk about that. >> is that not a conflict of interest? >> i'm not going to talk about that. >> are you aware that miss jeanne ree represented hillary clinton during the time of the emails during her time -- >> yes. >> aaron seb zebley destroyed one of clinton's mobile devices and you must be aware by now that six of your lawyers donated $12,000 directly to hillary clinton. i'm not even talking about the $49,000 they donated to other democrats. just the donations to the opponent who was the target of your investigation? >> can i speak for a moment to the hiring practices? >> sluure. >> we strove to hire individuals

who could do the joj. i've been in this business for almost 25 years. in those 25 years i've not had occasion once to ask about somebody's political affiliation. it is not done. what i care about is the cape nlt of the individual to do the job and do the job seriously and quickly and with integrity. >> that's what i'm saying. this isn't just about you being able to vouch for your team. that this is about no matter what this report concluded, half are going to be skeptical. that's why we have recusal laws. specifically list ts not just political conflict of interest but the appearance of political conflicts of interest. it's just simply not enough you vouch for your team. demands that no perceived bias exists. i can't imagine a single prosecutor or judge that i've appeared in front of would be comfortable with these circumstances where half of the prosecutorial team had a direct

relationship to the opponent of the person being investigated. >> we hired 19 lawyers over the period of time. of those, 14 of them were transferred from elsewhere in the department of justice. only five came from outside. we -- >> and had not had a direct relationship with the opponent of the person you were investigating. that's my point. i wonder if not a single word in this entire report was changed but rather the only difference was we switched hillary clinton and president trump. if peter strzok had tweeted those things about hillary clinton instead of president trump. if they went to trump's -- my colleagues would have spent the last four months accusing your team of being bought and paid for by the trump campaign and we couldn't trust a single word of this report. they would still be accusing the

president of conspiracy with russia. and with that i yield back. >> the gentleman from colorado. >> director mueller, thank you for your service to our country. i'd like to talk to you about the evidence in your report showing the president directing his son and communications director to issue a false public statement in june of 2017 about a meeting between his campaign and russian individuals at trump tower in june of 2016. according to your report, mr. trump jr. was the only trump associate who participated in that meeting and who declined to be voluntarily interviewed by your office. is that correct? >> yes. >> did mr. trump jr. or his counsel ever communicate to your office any intent to invoke his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination? >> i'm not going to answer that. >> you did pose written questions to the president about his knowledge of the trump tower meeting. you included -- also asked him about whether or not he had directed a false statement.

>> i don't have it in front of me. i take your word. >> i can represent to you that c-13 states as much. according to page 100 of volume 2, your investigation found hope hicks in june of 2017 was shown emails that set up the trump tower meeting. and she told your office that she was, quote, shocked by them details. >> you have the citation? >> sure. page 100 of volume 2. while you're flipping to that page, i will also tell you orgt page 99 of volume 2, those emails in question stated according to your report that russia had offered to incriminate hillary in her dealings with russia as part of russia and the government's support for mr. trump. trump jr. responded if it's what you say, i love it.

and he kushner and month fort met with the m -- on june 9th, 2016. correct? >> generally accurate. isn't it true thaw miss hicks told your office that he went mull pl times to the president to, quote, urge him that they should be fully transparent about the june 9th meeting, end quote. but the president each time said no. correct? >> accurate. >> and the reason was because of those emails which the president, quote, believed would not leak. correct? >> well, i'm not certain how it's characterized, but generally correct. >> did the president direct miss hicks to say, quote, only trump jr. because his at the same time cru crushed. >> let me just check one thing.

yes. >> and according to miss hicks, the president still directed her to say the meeting was only about russian adoption, correct? >> yes. >> despite knowing that to be untrue. thank you. i yield back the amount of my time. >> mr. mueller, you've been asked -- over here on the far right, sir. you've been asked a lot of questions here today. to be frank, you've performed as most of us expected. you've stuck closely to your report and you have declined to answer many of our questions on both sides. as the closer for the republican side -- i know you're glad to get to the close -- i want to summarize what we have heard and what we know. you spent two years and nearly $30 million in taxpayer dollars to prepare a nearly 450 page report. millions of americans today maintain genuine concerns about your work because of the

emphasis of bias between your members. campaign finance reports later showed that -- excuse me. it's my time. that team of democrat investigators you hired donated $60,000 to the hillary clinton campaign and other candidates. your team included peter styrk and lisa page to confirm they openly mocked an hated donald trump and they vowed to take him out. mr. radcliff asked can you give an an example where the justice department determined where an investigative person was not kp exonerated. you answered i request ncannot. that is unprecedented. the president believed you and your special counsel team had conflicts. yet, president trump cooperated fully with the investigation. he knew he had done nothing wrong and he encouraged all

witnesses to cooperate and produced more than 1.4 million pages of information and allowed over 40 witnesses affiliated with the white house or his campaign. your report acknowledges on page 61 that a volume of evidence exists of the president telling me people privately, quote, the president was concerned about the impact of the russian investigation on his abilities to govern and to address important foreign relations and matters of national security. on page 174 your report acknowledges that the supreme court has held quote, the president's removal powers are at their zenith with respect to principal officers. that is officers who must be appointed by the president and report to him directly. that would even include the attorney general. in spite of all of that, nothing ever happened to stop or impede your special counsel's investigation. nobody was fired by the

president. nothing was curtailed and the investigation continued for 22 long months. the evidence did not establish the president was involved in an underlying crime relating to russian interference and the evidence, quote, did not establish that the president or those close to him were involved in any russian conspiracies or had an unlawful relationship with any russian official. unquote. over those 22 months the president became frustrated as many of the american people did. he vented to his lawyer and close associates and shared his frustrations on twitter. while the president social media accounts might have influenced some in the media or the opinion of some of the american people, none of those audiences were targets or witnesses in your investigation. the president never affected anybody's testimony. he never demanded to end the investigation or demand you be terminate and never misled congress, the doj or the special

counsel. those are undisputed facts. there will be a lot of discuss today and great frustration throughout the can untcountry t you couldn't answer any questions about the origins of this cherade. as our hearing is concludesing we will get no comment on that from you. mr. mueller there's one primary reason why you were called here today and by the democrat majority. our colleagues on the other side of the aisle just want political cover. they wanted you o tell them they should impeach the president. the one thing you have said clearly is your report is complete and thorough and you agree with and stand by its recommendations and all of its content. is that right? >> true. >> your report does not recommend impeachment, does it? >> i'm not going to talk about recommendations. >> it does not concludes that impeachment would be appropriate here? >> i'm not going to talk about

that issue. >> that's one of the many things you won't talk about today. i think we can all draw our own conclusions opini conclusions. i do thank you for your service. i'm glad we can get back to our business. with that i yield back. >> our intent was to conclude this hearing at around 11:45. all the republican members have asked their questions but we have a few remaining democratic members. they will be limiting their questions so with director mueller's we will finish within 15 minutes. >> your investigations of the russian attack on our democracy and the obstruction of justice were extraordinarily productive. under two years your charged 37 people with crimed. you convicted five individuals. five of whom were top trump aides.

charges remain pending against more than two dozen russian persons or entitieentities. let me start with the trump aides. would you agree they are paul manafort, president trump's campaign

>> this house judiciary committee committee hearing with special counsel robert mueller continues live on our companion network c-span 3. the u.s. house will be gaveling in in just a minute for

legislative work on a number of noncontroversial bills. votes are expected at about 3:00 p.m. eastern. and now to live coverage of the u.s. house. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our guest chaplain, rabbi mark getman, temple emanu-el of canarsie, brooklyn, new york. the chaplain: let us pray. hetchly one, our protector and redeemer, guardian of life and liberty, we ask for your continued blessings as we open this session of the house of representatives. may our nation and its leaders be blessed with your protection as they continue their work for the constituents across these united states. god, continue to send your light to all elected officials across this land, guiding them with your good council -- counsel and providing them with wisdom and